Directors of two upcoming DC Comics-based movies have thought a lot about canon; they just have different thoughts. The post Suicide Squad’s Director Has a Message for Worried Fans appeared first on WIRED.

There is something fascinating going on at Boise State University and specifically the Department of Educational Technology. Let me introduce you to 3D GameLab, arguably an actual example demonstrating the evolution of today’s antiquated learning management system. The brainchild of Lisa Dawley and Chris Haskell, 3D GameLab is an online game-based learning environment facilitated by what are known as quests. What are quests, you ask? Quests are individual learning components such as short videos, diagrams, activities, text, audio, etc., that (when combined together) can make up the learning requirements of a traditional class. Students, however, have choice in what quests they want to gobble up. Imagine students having a say in what aspects of a topic like cellular biology or World War II history they are interested in that can make up the pedagogy of the overarching learning outcome of a traditional course. The students are in charge of constructing their road; the teacher provides as many interlocking bricks as is necessary for the students to build their own meandering path to reach the destination. Students can rank, rate, comment and provide feedback on each of the quests for others to view as well. As an added bonus, dependent on the learner, those quests can be accomplished in isolation, cooperatively or competitively within the friendly game environment. As the learner completes each quest, he or she is not awarded a percentage or letter grade, but experience points instead. These points need to add up to the total point requirement for course completion. And yes, in-game badges and awards are a big part of the environment as well. The project, although conceived by Dawley and Haskell, seems to be intellectual property of Boise State University and through research it completed, a go-to-market business model looks to be in discussion. There is a closed beta under way and thus far, teacher feedback is positive and perhaps glowing. In a comment titled, "I don’t want to go back, ever" Poison Shirt (a teacher in the beta) remarked: Students are moving beyond the standard curriculum to delve into new material, because they have choice, control and self-motivation to keep going. I am spending lots of my time creating new quests to stay ahead of them than I ever anticipated I would have to. This is a good problem to have. Could it be that 3D GameLab has cracked the bottleneck code? Is learning only found in an LMS or classroom? Or can it be portrayed and conducted in a manner such as the 3D GameLab initiative? Quoted in Converge Magazine, Haskell stated: "We do a pretty rotten job at the university level of demonstrating a variety of teaching techniques. [It’s] kind of a way of deconstructing education and making it available to people in a new way." I believe Haskell and Dawley have developed something I’ve been seeking for the past few years. Chunks or small nuggets of learning, available in many different formats, able to be pieced together at the user’s discretion, backed by collaborative-based social learning concepts through a gaming engine could well be the future of learning. Maybe it already is. They would be wise to put together a strong group of advisers to help them through the next few years as I see 3D GameLab making a strong and successful foray into the corporate learning world. It will be one project to watch in the coming months. Related Posts:Shouldn’t We Just Best Buy Corporate LearningThe edX, Udacity and Coursera ShowdownUdacity & Coursera. Is It Really Education Reform?ABC - The 21st Century Learning ModelIs The Root of All Evil the B.Ed Program?

In 2003, when Nicholas Carr penned the piece "IT Doesn’t Matter", an overlooked definition of what he referred to as ‘infrastructural technologies‘ may now be, in 2012, unintentionally defining the relationship between IT and the organization. "The characteristics and economics of infrastructural technologies, whether railroads or telegraph lines or power generators, make it inevitable that they will be broadly shared - that they will become part of the general business infrastructure. In the earliest phases of its buildout, however, an infrastructural technology can take the form of a proprietary technology. As long as access to the technology is restricted - through physical limitations, intellectual property rights, high costs, or a lack of standards - a company can use it to gain advantages over rivals." In the Web 2.0 world of today, arguably the infrastructural side of a more collaborative technology-based society, where we introduce terms such as Consumerization of IT, Shadow IT or SoMoClo to depict what is happening to organizations, employees and the CIO’s office, we’ve perhaps lost sight of why we’re at this junction. (10 years ago we called it ’Rogue IT‘ if you can believe it) Further fodder for your consideration: By 2015, Gartner predicts that 35% of enterprise IT expenditures will be managed outside the CIO’s department and budget PwC indicates that at their "top performer" companies, IT controls less than 50% of corporate technology expenditures Diamond Digital IQ suggests 41% of organizations witness 30% or more of IT expenditures residing elsewhere from IT So … what’s happened? What’s happening? Organizations and its employees outside of IT have begun to, well .. "Occupy IT". Not on purpose, mind you. At least that’s what I think. Those ‘infrastructural technologies‘ that Carr referred to circa 2003 have actually become the de facto technology, choice and user experience expectation of workers inside the organization. ‘Proprietary technologies‘ are becoming extinct, and an organization will now yearn to begin future planning with an ‘infrastructural technology’ mindset first. Business units and its constituents are now employing an "Occupy IT" movement due to, in part, the belief (whether right or wrong) that IT has morphed into the 1% and the rest of the organization is viewed as the 99% when it comes to control of the technology to perform one’s role. The 1% is controlling the experience for the 99%. They are the proprietary mindset. And as a consequence, the organization is pushing back. Shadow IT, Rogue IT, Consumerization of IT … call it whatever you like, is back, growing and not going away. This is not merely about BYOD (bring your own device), nor the recent success of Apple nor is it because Facebook is getting close to one billion users. The organization wants a seat at the IT table; it wants to become part of the solution, part of the infrastructural conversation. The organization, in essence, is camping out in the park trying to be heard, trying to help IT shift to, as Dion Hinchcliffe calls it, the "everythingization of technology". It is at its root a case study in behaviour change. For years, perhaps decades, IT has controlled. Be it the infrastructure, technology roadmap, innovation, ERP, human capital systems … and of course devices, PC’s and laptops, IT was the gatekeeper of technologies and the organization was the recipient. One might argue that they (IT) were the benefactors of Fayol or Taylor in so much that the hierarchical way in which it (IT) was allowed to operate with the organization ensured its proprietary technology plans remained steadfast and unadulteratedly in control. It may never have reached the infrastructural stage for some companies. "Most important is the culture," says Tim Bray when referring to IT and how it must reverse trajectory when designing and implementing enterprise systems. I agree. There may be an upside of shadow IT out there, but the staid, industrial revolution-like way in which IT operates must evolve. The organization doesn’t want to "Occupy IT", per se, but its inadvertent occupation is growing. I can assure you that any organization would be better suited to have IT as a collaborative, proactive and engaging partner rather than viewed as an OPEX cost centre simply in charge of keeping the lights on or, worse, launching roadblocks at any "Occupy IT" intersection. To avoid the current predicament, to avoid the ‘occupation‘, IT might create history by looking back to history. It’s no secret IBM’s longevity and its 100+ year history is as a result of being able to reinvent itself in spite of depressions, recessions, revolutions and dissolutions. Although a marketing effort, the following words from IBM’s "THINK: Our History of Progress; 1890s to 2001" encapsulates my point: Entering the 1990′s,moves into major new growth businesses, principally services and software, and embraces open standards for computing. The company also fundamentally reshapes its culture to refocus on clients and to be more agile, responsive and collaborative. Perhaps IT might look to one of its own and lead the charge to becoming an infrastructural proactive and community driven business unit as opposed to one based on proprietary close-minded thinking. This would ensure the "Occupy IT" movement subsided and cooler, more collaborative heads prevailed. Related Posts:Future of Work: Add Open Leadership, Enterprise 2.0, Connected Learning and MixThe Hare, the Tortoise and the Jackass of Social HRThe Mysterium Tremendum LeaderThe Link Between Leadership, Learning & Organizational PerformanceToo Dot Oh: Making Sense of the Terrible 2’s

Swordfighting? Hand-to-hand badassery? Back tattoos? What's not to look forward to? The post AMC Finally Takes the Wraps Off Its Martial Arts Series Into the Badlands appeared first on WIRED.

The higher education online learning gloves are now officially off. Let’s first recap the dizzying pace of change, announcements and launches that have occurred since the Fall of 2011 between Udacity, Coursera, MITx and the latest free-learning darling, edX. October 10 - Official launch of Introduction to AI (origin of Udacity) as well as Introduction to Databases and Machine Learning (origin of Coursera) December 19 - MITx is announced  January 1 - Charles West Ventures invests $5m into Udacity (or is it Know Labs?) January 23 - Professor Thrun officially announces Udacity thus breaking away from Stanford February 20 - First official Udacity courses launch - CS 101: Building a Search Engine and CS 373: Programming a Robotic Car March 5 - MITx launches first course 6.002x (Circuits and Electronics) April 18 - Coursera (founded by Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng) announces $16m in funding from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and New Enterprise Associates April 18 - Coursera announces university partnerships with Princeton University, University of Michigan and University of Pennsylvania (yes, the same day) April 23 - First official Coursera courses launch  May 2 - MIT and Harvard announce edX, a $60m venture between the two Boston area universities with the first courses set to launch in the Fall of 2012 It was a mere three months ago in February when I questioned whether Udacity and Coursera were in fact reforming higher education. (Udacity even has a new funky logo since last February) Arguably they already have, based not only on the launch of edX in the academic vertical but continued (perhaps competitive?) innovations occurring in the corporate learning space from Skillsoft, Pearson and Saba among others. And let’s not forget other great ideas like 3D GameLabs at Boise State University or of course Khan Academy and the recently launched TED-Ed or Google’s Search Education. But let’s focus our attention on edX, MITx, Udacity and Coursera. Some of you may be thinking this is reminiscent of the 1990′s West Coast versus East Coast rapper wars with a stand-off between Silicon Valley and Boston-based universities. Thankfully the recent additions of Princeton, uPenn and uMich to Coursera have alleviated that theory. This is not a Stanford vs. Boston Ivy League coastal duel. So what is going on? Money. That’s not a bad thing, but I believe it is about money. How so? Collectively, we know that $81 million dollars has been invested in the three (or is it four MITx?) fledgling online entities thus far. Thrun even put $200k of his own money additionally into Udacity. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the new Academic partners in Coursera have also funded the endeavour, perhaps behind the scenes. Some of that money is being invested by venture capital firms. Unless the purpose of a VC has changed and pigs can now fly, it reasons to stand these funding partners have their eye on a bigger prize downstream. When Harvard realized the Bruins were out of the Stanley Cup playoffs, they decided to get cozy with MIT and their MITx initiative. With each institution investing $30m into the pot (when MITx launched a mere 6 months ago) shows you how much potential new money is at stake. This is a classic example of investing for the long term by all stakeholders from each of the projects. Harold Jarche’s observation with me over Twitter was a classic Jarche-ism. Data; those hundreds of thousands of people enrolling into courses, for free, are submitting an awful lot of data, and perhaps it’s the data that can be sold at a later date by the partners. Think about companies who may be keenly interested in analyzing the online studying behaviours of people. It’s those learners who are receiving a free course that will be (unknowingly?) providing data points to companies in search of trends and the like. There is the possibility that edX and Coursera in particular are using these non-credentialed courses as loss leaders. (see the FAQ of edX - no Harvard or MIT recognition comes with a completed course nor are any credits issued) If the courses are free, and they lead to nothing more than a certificate of completion (affiliated by no university whatsoever) students may want an actual official degree or designation from one of the Academic institutions at some point for their efforts. Do you really think Harvard is simply going to give away their crest for free? MIT? Princeton? Highly unlikely. I see these projects as opportunities to upsell fee-based programs and degrees that otherwise might not have occurred due to the lack of a sales channel. Or possibly the online free courses can add up to an official credential at some point, but the student would have to purchase the actual articulation. For example, a student completes 120 articulated credits via Coursera over a 6-year period, and she wants a degree now to show for her efforts. Through the magic of the partnerships, the student can be provided the degree for a fee. Brilliant if you think about it. What originally was free could now be a revenue stream for the academic institutions and both parties are happy. This approach might even allow for the mash-up of a degree. If I’d like a Bachelor’s Degree from Princeton in the Humanities, perhaps I can come up with my own choose-your-own-adventure curriculum via Coursera and after the articulation has been completed (and I pay the fee) … voila I’m a Princeton grad. What about the corporate learning space? Well, if I were some of the companies listed above, I might be a little worried. I’d at least pay closer attention to what is going on. Where there are VC’s there is (usually) money to be had. And if Coursera, edX and Udacity prove me right, they eventually will get into the corporate learning platform space. I see a day where corporate customers will utilize a cloud-based version of their platform but in a secure, private manner. Those same customers may even utilize content from the academic institutions - whether it’s the free options or aspects of executive education that is highly sought after by corporations and lucrative to those academic institutions noted above. Think about corporate access via edX to Harvard Business School Executive Education and its talent pool. Egads, that’s luring. This disruption that is occurring in the academic space is foreboding; I see it as the potential merge of corporate learning with academic institutions. Either way, the gloves are off. Stay tuned for a wild ride ahead. Related Posts:Udacity & Coursera. Is It Really Education Reform?16 Months of Social Learning Platform Insanity: A RecapInterlocutor: The Word of 2012top 53D GameLab Could Be The Future of Learning

The representative is at Comic Con, cosplaying as himself from the march on Selma 50 years ago. The post Congressman John Lewis Might Have Just Won Comic Con appeared first on WIRED.

Best Buy, a renown electronics retailer perhaps better known for its khaki pants and blue shirt dress code, could be viewed analagously with that of an evolved corporate learning structure. Imagine that you’re at one of their corporate stores. What do you see when you enter the store? There she/he is, the greeter: "Hello sir, how are you today?" As you pass the greeter in this vivid, brightly lit and humming environment there are a number of learning sherpas … the guides on the side not pestering you to buy something, rather, able and available when you require assistance. There are no commissions at Best Buy to make a sale. Employees are there, quite literally, to help you as necessary. Sure, it’s a formal environment with walls, electricity and so on, but it is not a dogmatic, force-fed curriculum. Those learning sherpas do not prescribe the pedagogy. They guide your meandering requirements, your personal learning environment wishes, your own path on an as-needed basis. In the corporate learning space, why can’t our formal learning requirements (and there will always be formal learning requirements) be more like the Best Buy store? Why can’t it be simple, open, flexible and built on user choice? Now, picture yourself at an airport, scurrying down the powered walkways to make it on time to your gate. If you’re at Charles de Gaulle airport, start praying. Those walkways are debatable at best. Peer to the right, against the wall. What do you see? That’s right, it’s a Best Buy Express kiosk. It’s at this kiosk where you can purchase and thus pick up electronics at your convenience. Of course the selection is refined from that of the big blue shirt nation stores, but aren’t these bite-sized chunks made available in a convenient format for times when you need it most? For example, at an airport? Why doesn’t the corporate learning sector think like this? Why can’t it introduce the concept of bite-sized learning chunks? Why can’t it grasp the notion that we all would like to learn at the speed of need? Couldn’t it introduce a concept like Best Buy Express kiosks (metaphorically of course) into the corporate learning space? Isn’t this a nice informal option? Our last example, as you might suspect, has us venturing over to BestBuy.com. It’s at this site where I can peruse the entire catalogue of Best Buy products, but I’m able to do so at my own pace, at my own interest level, and in whatever order I choose. Even more important is that I now can utilize knowledge and expertise from my colleagues (in this case, the Best Buy crowd) to gauge whether they like the product through comments and rankings. Want more? Through the magic of repeat shopping and business intelligence within BestBuy.com, you are provided with recommendations on products you might be interested to purchase. Bought that 80 inch SHARP TV last week? Sweet screen, but did you forget the HDMI cable to connect your Blu-Ray player to the fancy new monster TV that your neighbours are already complaining about? Don’t worry, the site will advise you on this important component. The next time you’re online at the site, it might recommend a new sound system to accompany your massive LED light factory where those same neighbours have now lodged a formal complaint at City Hall. The site is an example of social learning. Thus, why aren’t more corporate learning functions taking charge of their own fate by employing this type of social learning strategy? It boggles my mind to be honest. There are too many goalies in the corporate learning space. There need to be more center forwards trying to score goals. In summary, if you were to think about Best Buy and compare its physical stores, its kiosks and its website to the corporate learning function, you might agree with me. It’s time for everyone in the learning space to start wearing khaki pants and blue shirts and echo the formal, informal and social construct of Best Buy. Perhaps it’s simply another way of looking at the Connected Learning model. Related Posts:3D GameLab Could Be The Future of LearningWhy I Love Newsle16 Months of Social Learning Platform Insanity: A RecapFriday Fun: iPrefer iPad iScrabbleHR Doesn’t Need a Seat at the Table, it is the Table

Quentin Tarantino is a perfect filmmaker, and it looks like his Hateful Eight is no exception. The post Hateful Eight in 70mm Will Be the Best Cinematic Experience of the Year appeared first on WIRED.

For the past two and half years at my real job as the head of learning and collaboration, we’ve been early adopters of a virtual world product called AvayaLive Engage, developed by a company named Avaya. It was formerly known as Web.Alive, and although I’m not a fan of the name change, that’s about the only negative comment I have with the product. If you’re unfamiliar with virtual worlds, you are missing a very important aspect of workplace collaboration. At its core, virtual worlds are online 3-D computer-simulated environments in which users are depicted by avatars and interaction between them can mimic either a given real-life scenario or in some cases a fictitious and alternative world scenario. I won’t delve into the latter and will leave that to those who specialize in such creativity. In a non-fiction, business environment, virtual worlds can be an extremely effective piece of the collaboration puzzle. Here are five examples: 1) Coaching and Mentoring / 1-1 Meetings If your organization is struck by T&E reductions, and you want to continue your coaching and mentoring programs, why not shift it to a virtual world environment? Using a conference call to coach or mentor someone when not in the same city is fine, but a more engaging experience is to utilize a virtual world and conduct the session in a room that simulates a face-to-face experience. The same goes for 1-1 meetings; the virtual world is a perfect place to mimic the face-to-face experience if the two individuals are separated by distance of any sort. 2) Fireside Chats If you believe in breaking the hierarchy between senior management and front-line employees or individual contributors, why not initiate the concept of informal, fireside chats? No script, no notes, just an informal conversation. Better yet, to help others in geographies where they can’t meet in person, why not conduct those sessions in your virtual world? It’s cool, interactive and your employees will love the opportunity to mingle in such a funky way. 3) Induction Are you still bringing new employees into your organization with a two- or three-day face-to-face orientation session? That’s not a bad thing, but what if you did away with such a concept or at least augmented it with the virtual world? Imagine lining up a series of speakers from across your organization, who arrived in the virtual world environment to wax lyrical about his or her role, business unit or history at the company. Wouldn’t that be sweet? The mingling thereafter could be powerful as well. 4) Customers Without customers there really isn’t a company, so why not utilize the virtual world as a way to engage with your customers directly? You could conduct focus groups, instructor-led learning sessions, widget/gadget/service demonstrations, or through the use of contests a way to recognize customers or at least appreciate their business. All from the comfort of their home. 5) Learning Roadshows What if you utilized the virtual world environment to drive an interactive learning roadshow across your organization? Through the use of normal teaching tools, such as polling, voting, PowerPoint (yes, I know), whiteboards, as well as webcams, videos and inline chatting, the learning roadshow could be a hit with employees. It’s social, informal and extremely engaging. I’ve been very impressed with the AvayaLive Engage product thus far. (And no, Avaya did not compensate me to write this.) It has become an integral part to the overall suite of tools and behaviors I believe are necessary to drive engagement, productivity and business results in your workforce. Related Posts:Virtual Worlds in an Organization are not a Time Waster (and5 Use Cases for a Corporate YouTube in OrganizationsHas the Economic Meltdown & 9/11 Impacted our…Interlocutor: The Word of 2012Waiting For SuperExecutive: Why Executives Should Get on the

The Pluto photos from New Horizons keep rolling in, this one taken from a mere 2.5 million miles away. The post New Horizons Gets Its Last Look at the Far Side of Pluto appeared first on WIRED.